In your opinion, who truly holds baseball's single season home run record?

Ol' No. 2

03-08-2006, 06:06 PM

Is this a trick question? Who in hell do you think is going to vote for Bonds?

Viva Medias B's

03-08-2006, 06:09 PM

Is this a trick question? Who in hell do you think is going to vote for Bonds?

No one, I hope.

TheDarkGundam

03-08-2006, 06:12 PM

This should be one of those polls where you can see what people voted for.
I hope no one will vote for Barroid though.

NSSoxFan

03-08-2006, 06:15 PM

This should be one of those polls where you can see what people voted for.
I hope no one will vote for Barroid though.

If 20 people voted to boo Frank, there will be plenty of votes for steroid.

maurice

03-08-2006, 06:32 PM

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/thumbnails/columnist/2003-05/7622751.jpg
"We have said this before, so why not say it again:
Sammy Sosa is the single-season home run record-
holder with those 66 in 1998."

If 20 people voted to boo Frank, there will be plenty of votes for steroid.

0 so far. And 0 it should be.

Booing Frank is an opinion.

This is no longer opinion. It is now fact. You cannot defend Bonds without lying, and you cannot claim he holds the record without lying.

Facts are a beautiful thing.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Johnny Mostil

03-08-2006, 06:37 PM

Where's Mark McGwire?

SoxFan76

03-08-2006, 06:42 PM

I voted Bonds. Look at the record book. Bonds has the single season home run record. Is it tainted? Sure. He still has the record though...and it's a shame.

downstairs

03-08-2006, 06:47 PM

I voted Bonds. Look at the record book. Bonds has the single season home run record. Is it tainted? Sure. He still has the record though...and it's a shame.

If we still had a Commish in baseball, it would no longer be in there.

There's something called the "Best Interest of the Game" clause that allows Bud to basically do whatever the heck he wants.

But what do you expect from a used car salesman?

Ol' No. 2

03-08-2006, 08:46 PM

I voted Bonds. Look at the record book. Bonds has the single season home run record. Is it tainted? Sure. He still has the record though...and it's a shame.Did you ever hear of the fruit from the tainted tree principle? Everything he did from 1999 on should be expunged from the record books. And he should be ruled ineligible for the HOF because of the lasting damage he's done. Ditto for McGwire, Sosa, Giambi and anyone else who's found out.

Daver

03-08-2006, 09:00 PM

Did you ever hear of the fruit from the tainted tree principle? Everything he did from 1999 on should be expunged from the record books. And he should be ruled ineligible for the HOF because of the lasting damage he's done. Ditto for McGwire, Sosa, Giambi and anyone else who's found out.

What about the players in the sixties that were known to be taking speed?

Should those records also be expunged?

Where do you draw the line, and how do you know where to draw it?

Steroids have been around since 1959, where is the proof that players in the sixties and seventies weren"t using them?

tick53

03-08-2006, 09:18 PM

No 'Roids in '61.....Maris is still the record holder.

gbergman

03-08-2006, 09:32 PM

What about the players in the sixties that were known to be taking speed?

Should those records also be expunged?

Where do you draw the line, and how do you know where to draw it?

Steroids have been around since 1959, where is the proof that players in the sixties and seventies weren"t using them?
daver really has a point there

Ol' No. 2

03-08-2006, 09:33 PM

What about the players in the sixties that were known to be taking speed?

Should those records also be expunged?

Where do you draw the line, and how do you know where to draw it?

Steroids have been around since 1959, where is the proof that players in the sixties and seventies weren"t using them?You draw the line at steroids, HGH and other performance enhancers. I don't have to prove anything. But since you brought it up, what needs to be done is a thorough, independent investigation of the use of performance-enhancing drugs. It won't be pretty, I can guarantee you. More than one player will be found out that people would rather not know about. But it's the only way. It's a mess that needs to be cleaned up and nothing cleanses like the truth.

Daver

03-08-2006, 09:38 PM

You draw the line at steroids, HGH and other performance enhancers. I don't have to prove anything. But since you brought it up, what needs to be done is a thorough, independent investigation of the use of performance-enhancing drugs. It won't be pretty, I can guarantee you. More than one player will be found out that people would rather not know about. But it's the only way. It's a mess that needs to be cleaned up and nothing cleanses like the truth.

How do you investigate something that is forty years old, when the records are gone, and in some cases the players are dead?

Where do you end the witch hunt, and where do you start it?

Your idea seems noble, but it will never happen, the task is too huge.

CWSpalehoseCWS

03-08-2006, 09:43 PM

Maris, without a doubt. And this is coming from someone who never saw him play.

Ol' No. 2

03-08-2006, 09:43 PM

How do you investigate something that is forty years old, when the records are gone, and in some cases the players are dead?

Where do you end the witch hunt, and where do you start it?

Your idea seems noble, but it will never happen, the task is too huge.You don't. You set reasonable limits, just as you do in any investigation. 1988 seems like a reasonable one. You accept the fact that amphetamines were in such widespread use that it's not part of the investigation. Arbitrary? Sure. Life is often arbitrary, but we deal with it. It's a hell of a lot better than just saying anything goes.

Daver

03-08-2006, 09:46 PM

You don't. You set reasonable limits, just as you do in any investigation. 1988 seems like a reasonable one. You accept the fact that amphetamines were in such widespread use that it's not part of the investigation. Arbitrary? Sure. Life is often arbitrary, but we deal with it. It's a hell of a lot better than just saying anything goes.

So you ignore the fact that steroids have been around since the early sixties, and witch hunt only the players from this era?

Nope, I don't buy it.

Ol' No. 2

03-08-2006, 09:49 PM

So you ignore the fact that steroids have been around since the early sixties, and witch hunt only the players from this era?

Nope, I don't buy it.Before the late 80's you didn't have players growing two hat sizes in their 30's. None of the major record holders of that time show any of the typical symptoms. You either decide to clean it up or anything goes. There's no in between.

HotelWhiteSox

03-08-2006, 09:55 PM

What about the players in the sixties that were known to be taking speed?

Should those records also be expunged?

Where do you draw the line, and how do you know where to draw it?

Steroids have been around since 1959, where is the proof that players in the sixties and seventies weren"t using them?

I'm sure many players gambled, but Pete Rose was one that got caught an made an example. I say if there's evidence (which the Federal government has on Giambi, Bonds, maybe others), make a statement.

Daver

03-08-2006, 10:00 PM

I'm sure many players gambled, but Pete Rose was one that got caught an made an example. I say if there's evidence (which the Federal government has on Giambi, Bonds, maybe others), make a statement.

I'd say the 1919 White Sox had already been made the example.

FarWestChicago

03-08-2006, 10:00 PM

So you ignore the fact that steroids have been around since the early sixties, and witch hunt only the players from this era?

Nope, I don't buy it.Baseball players are morons compared to Olympic athletes and body builders. There is no way they were juicing before the true chemists in sports. I don't think there is much doubt that Oakland is where 'roids really got a foothold in baseball. It may not be provable beyond a reasonable doubt, but I think it's a very rational assumption.

ChiSoxRowand

03-08-2006, 10:07 PM

So you ignore the fact that steroids have been around since the early sixties, and witch hunt only the players from this era?

Nope, I don't buy it.

Daver is completely right. Regardless of how bad it is, steroids were not against the rules until a couple of years ago. If you wan't to keep these guys out of the hall, fine. You can't change the record books. Hey, while were at it, why don't we take away the Cy Young awards from Gaylord Perry and Mike Scott, who doctored the ball. Perry admitted it.

Daver

03-08-2006, 10:09 PM

Baseball players are morons compared to Olympic athletes and body builders. There is no way they were juicing before the true chemists in sports. I don't think there is much doubt that Oakland is where 'roids really got a foothold in baseball. It may not be provable beyond a reasonable doubt, but I think it's a very rational assumption.

You may well be correct, but to dismiss it out of hand only proves that the league is on a witch hunt against the current era, and is choosing to dismiss the sins of the past, be they large or small.

There is also the possibilty that MLB has no interest in pursuing this because they have their own best interest in mind, and are being forced into it because Barry Bonds is on the verge of capturing the biggest record in sports, the home run title.

CLR01

03-08-2006, 10:10 PM

Daver is completely right. Regardless of how bad it is, steroids were not against the rules until a couple of years ago.

Yes they were, testing was not done until a couple of years ago.

Ol' No. 2

03-09-2006, 10:37 AM

Daver is completely right. Regardless of how bad it is, steroids were not against the rules until a couple of years ago. If you wan't to keep these guys out of the hall, fine. You can't change the record books. Hey, while were at it, why don't we take away the Cy Young awards from Gaylord Perry and Mike Scott, who doctored the ball. Perry admitted it.This excuse makes me want to puke. Not being explicitly banned in the rule book does not make it legal. There's also no explicit rule against stealing signs from center field and flashing colored lights on the scoreboard to tell the batter what pitch is coming. Are you going to tell me that's not against the rules, too?

But don't take my word for it. Guess who else doesn't agree with you? Barry Bonds, Scammy Sosa and Mark McGwire. They all know what they did was wrong or they wouldn't be trying so hard to deny it.

D. TODD

03-09-2006, 10:48 AM

I wholeheartedly agree with Daver! Amphetamines and the like were performance enhancing drugs as well. I think MLB should concentrate on the present and use strict enforcement of the current rules. Don't go around arbitrarily picking and choosing which records they feel like voiding due to who used, or is suspected of using, which performance enhancers and how much they think it helped each player.

spiffie

03-09-2006, 10:51 AM

I wonder if when Frank Thomas hears people defending Bonds and justifying the whole 90's era he thinks to himself "maybe I was wrong for not jumping on the roids bandwagon." After all, McGwire and Bonds and Sosa will all get to be HOF'ers without question, while Frank risks getting lumped in with Belle and Gonzalez and other guys who weren't as good as their...let's say "surprisingly large" counterparts.

Hell, as a fan of the White Sox, I wonder if they didn't shoot themselves in the foot by being pretty much the cleanest team in the league (think back to when the team wanted to throw the tests to guarantee roid testing) instead of playing along with the game. Maybe a few good cycles of "flaxseed oil" might have helped us get to the World Series before last year. I mean sure, 25 years from now we might have vaguely noticed a few of the players seeming to die younger than you would expect, but it would be a fuzzy sort of thing at best.

I think in some ways this hits on one of the biggest questions as a sports fan. How do you feel about your players? Do you want them to take every possible advantage? Would you rather see the team you support lose cleanly than win dirty? As Sox fans, are most of us so annoyed about steroids mainly because none of our players seemed to benefit from them?

voodoochile

03-09-2006, 10:52 AM

You may well be correct, but to dismiss it out of hand only proves that the league is on a witch hunt against the current era, and is choosing to dismiss the sins of the past, be they large or small.

There is also the possibilty that MLB has no interest in pursuing this because they have their own best interest in mind, and are being forced into it because Barry Bonds is on the verge of capturing the biggest record in sports, the home run title.

Not until he catches Josh Gibson...

Rooney4Prez56

03-09-2006, 12:09 PM

I think in some ways this hits on one of the biggest questions as a sports fan. How do you feel about your players? Do you want them to take every possible advantage? Would you rather see the team you support lose cleanly than win dirty? As Sox fans, are most of us so annoyed about steroids mainly because none of our players seemed to benefit from them?

YES!

I have no tolerance for cheaters. If you're not good enough, take your beating like a man.

If none of our players benefited, I'm happy. I'm happy to know that the Sox earned what they got. Steroid-FREE.

SouthSide_HitMen

03-09-2006, 02:16 PM

If none of our players benefited, I'm happy. I'm happy to know that the Sox earned what they got. Steroid-FREE.

Maris deserves recognition as The Natural single season HR record holder & Bonds deserves recognition as The UnNatural holder.

Canseco may be proven right in the end. If the science behind doping greatly reduces side effects & health risks will any one care any more? Will everyone be juiced 20 yrs from now?

D. TODD

03-09-2006, 03:38 PM

Maris deserves recognition as The Natural single season HR record holder & Bonds deserves recognition as The UnNatural holder.

Canseco may be proven right in the end. If the science behind doping greatly reduces side effects & health risks will any one care any more? Will everyone be juiced 20 yrs from now? That day will come, just how soon is the question.

Ol' No. 2

03-09-2006, 04:10 PM

Maris deserves recognition as The Natural single season HR record holder & Bonds deserves recognition as The UnNatural holder.

Canseco may be proven right in the end. If the science behind doping greatly reduces side effects & health risks will any one care any more? Will everyone be juiced 20 yrs from now?What Barry Bonds deserves is to be kicked out of baseball and sent to prison for about 10 years for perjury.

ChiSoxRowand

03-09-2006, 04:11 PM

There's also no explicit rule against stealing signs from center field and flashing colored lights on the scoreboard to tell the batter what pitch is coming. Are you going to tell me that's not against the rules, too?

What's wrong with stealing signs from second base?

Ol' No. 2

03-09-2006, 04:18 PM

What's wrong with stealing signs from second base?Nothing. They're players. They're part of the game. Ditto for coaches.

Baby Fisk

03-09-2006, 04:18 PM

I voted for Barry Bonds, because the single season HR record is now a mark of shame borne by MLB. Let Bonds keep the record that he himself rendered meaningless.

SoLongFrank

03-10-2006, 06:41 PM

I voted for Maris & I thank the poll creator for deleting Sosa & McGuire. IMO, Bonds, McGuire, Sosa, & yes Palmeiro's biggest fault in all of this has been denial. That's what scorns them for life.

Even if public sentiment changes on the issue of doping itself these 4 will be branded as liars. It won't matter if they come out & confess to doing it then. No one likes a liar & no one has sympathy for one.

Canseco is different. He never lied about it. At first he had nothing but firm support of it. More recently he's narrowed that down to just professional athletes & only under a doctor's supervision. Maybe the USA Today report on deaths in professional wrestling changed his mind.

As for Barry the 73 HR's set him up as public enemy #1 in MLB for years to come. If he should surpass Ruth & Aaron he'll be public enemy #1 for life.

But it's not all bad. As the most visible public enemy of any sport the issue itself will remain in the forefront. That forces MLB to deal with it on the most strictest terms.